The conviction of Mr. Libby has sent Liberals into fits of ecstasy, many of them now voicing hope that having convicted one innocent man, they can set their sights on greater targets. The proof of the last several years has shown that a Liberal can commit felonies without worry, while an innocent Conservative can be railroaded unless he is quite careful to watch his steps. Small wonder such worthy individuals as Condi Rice have declined to seek elected office, but that's for another time. My point for this article is to address the condition of those remaining Americans who refuse to be swayed by media propaganda and the expedient lies from the likes of McCain and Reid and Pelosi, who stand behind their commitments and their elected President. A sneering Liberal in the comments here derisively tagged us as "the few, the proud, the 28%", implying that President Bush only has a 28% Approval Rating. That is, like so much from the Left, a false claim and shows a bit of the malice which colors everything from the DNC and the MSM these days, but even so I will claim that label as a badge of honor. Not that I am as good as a United States Marine, to which the rest of that phrase alludes, yet there is something to the core of that comparison which defines a condition of honor which the miscreant missed in his chortling.

Some time back, I made a statement that Liberals could not be engaged productively in a discussion about National Security. In noting that fact now, I need to be clear that this does not disqualify people with Liberal perspectives, in political terms, from holding valid perspectives and presenting useful thoughts. I would go so far, and I know this will offend those who are easily offended, as to say that fewer Liberals than Conservatives can hold onto firm and consistent ethical positions across the spectrum. There is a reason for that, and one which Conservatives should consider.

continued

Life works sometimes like a hot furnace, burning away dross and a fair amount of skin. In the process, many people quite naturally try to avoid the flames and protect their feelings at the cost of hardening assumptions into committed principles, which errors sometimes lead to greater cost. Also, there is a pervasive sense among many people that violence is always wrong, that the majority (or at least the appearance of a majority) is always right, or that we must subordinate the missions of the greatest among us to the will of the weakest among us. The obvious hypocrisy that such people never hesitate to call the police for their own protection, that they will try to change the definitions of victory whenever they realize they have lost a battle, and that they will put their personal ideology ahead of even the US Constitution whenever they stand to lose something, is a matter which such folks reject out of hand. This does not mean that the obvious is true, but rather that we must test claims and assumptions, in that very fire of consequence and cost I mentioned. Defeat has a cost, but it teaches lessons as well. And between 1932 and 1994, the Conservatives in America were forced to learn many such lessons, but they resulted in Ronald Reagan and the 1994 Revolution. In that same time, many Liberals suffered no losses of consequence, and so they never firmed their principles into anything stronger than the personal character of individual leaders, whose substance gradually fell to the mockery of "leadership" we see today in the Left.

It is not really hard to see what happened to the Left; just look at what passes for their leadership. They are, to the last person, wealthy and obsessed with their personal privilege, convinced not only that they are entitled to special privileges but that this is the natural order of things. The aristocracy in pre-Revolution France was never so arrogant. And this, be sure, is also a problem for some on the Right. When in the past two decades has John McCain done hard labor? Could you even imagine Chuck Hagel working a 40-hour week for a paycheck? Does anyone seriously believe that John Boehner has done his own driving, his own taxes, or mowed his own yard in the last ten years? One problem Republicans had in the 2006 elections had nothing to do with President Bush, but everything to do with how out-of-touch Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert were with the average American. They had gotten too insulated, and became convinced that they did not need to answer to anyone, and so found themselves - in the end - rejected by the people they forgot about, who turned out to matter.

Conservatives and Liberals who are elected to office are often protected by the system in place, and by groups which act to protect and promote their special interests. But the Conservatives have fewer such crony groups, largely because the Democrats had more time in power to attract such people. The largest unions, for example, came to support Democrats not only because the Democrats molded their legislative priorities to match union demands, but because the Democrats/Liberals were clearly in power for so many decades, and so paying money and privilege to the Left was the way to prime the pump for payback to the unions.

Conservatives also benefited from the fact that their support groups were more willing to re-examine their ideals and goals, and many of their groups were committed to justice far ahead of expediency. This is one reason why the military gradually became stronger and stronger supporters of Republicans; not because the GOP was perfect by any means, but because the Democrats were less and less committed to the ideals to which soldiers swear fealty. The same for religious groups, who often tested their support for a candidate by how well his voting record was aligned with their ideals. This meant of course, that sometimes Conservatives lost ground because they could not lock in support for groups they needed, but it provides an essential moral compass which is missing from the Left.

Doing the right thing is not often easy, and it often comes at a cost. So it is hardly surprising that not everyone can commit to it, or that such commitment would be sporadic even among well-meaning people. And it is not surprising that so many, on the Left and the Right, may find it easy to fall back to habit rather than carefully consider their course and commitments, and then stand by them for the duration of the promise. The media and the Liberals have done a rather effective job of preventing folks from hearing what President Bush has done right in Iraq, or in the Economy, or in Judicial Reform, or in so many other areas of his job. Lies and slander are the currency of the day for so many who pretend to hold Truth as their ideal. When an arrogant liar like Gore can be lauded and lionized for false claims and hypocritical behavior regarding his own demands, while the President's clear policies are mis-stated and mocked if they are considered at all, it is no surprise that many folks would fall away and say they do not approve of him, even when the other party provides no effective answer for how they would meet the challenges of the nation.

I stand with the President, as a Republican and a Conservative, and as I always have. I do not change my mind because the weather gets rough. And unlike many who will lie and equivocate later when asked about their support and commitment, I will always be able to look querants straight in the eye and confirm that I never wavered. If few stand with me, those few have passed a test most people fear to even face.

"A sneering Liberal in the comments here derisively tagged us as "the few, the proud, the 28%", implying that President Bush only has a 28% Approval Rating. That is, like so much from the Left, a false claim and shows a bit of the malice which colors everything from the DNC and the MSM these days,"

3/2-4/07 - Gallup/USA Today:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve - 33%

Disapprove - 63%

Unsure - 4%

You're right - 33% is so much better. The 28% low-water mark was from the CBS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 23-27 - and that was TWO WHOLE WEEKS AGO!

DJ Drummond..you and Barney are practically the only one's left who who believe in the rectitude of this administrationon this matter. Even Scot McClellan, the former spin doctor for Bush and Cheney when the proverbial "sh.. hit the fan on the leak is fed up with all the falsehoods that his former bosses gave him. Remember him? the President 's own pr man doesn't have any faith in President... we are in trouble.

"If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration"

Steve, reading that article (I don't watch the videos at work) it looks like McClellan thinks the administration should go and spin this instead of ignoring it until the appeals process is done. Hardly the way you intentionally mirepresented it.

As to your quote, the "it" was outing a covert agent...which didn't happen. Other than that, I don't believe Libby is actually IN the administration anymore....or are you claiming he still is?

brainy 435. good point on Libby, but Libby was considered Cheney's Cheney who was involved (though not proven) and is still at the White House, unless he has given his resignation letter. As to the question about 'outing a covert agent'..there are 2 views on that;one, she wasn't, and two, she was

Yes, there are 2 views. One supported by the fact that the special prosecutor hasn't indicted anyone for outing an agent after years of investigation and the other being a liberal wet dream with no grounding in reality.

Cheney was involved in defending his office from Wilsons lies. There was no crime in this, so there is no conspiracy he can be tied to. Why would he resign?

No one is denying that Plame WAS a covert agent at one point. But she wasn't anymore and hadn't been for years, so she couldn't be "outed."

As a follow up. I concede the conservatives have a good point in why the larger question of the 'crime' of leaking 'a covert agent' in the CIA was never addressed by Fitzgerald..I think it would help clarify the issue for everyone, if he did..Kevin Drum a liberal blogger echos this.."I think Patrick Fitzgerald really does owe us all an explanation of one thing: at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not an indictable criminal offense? Was it early in the investigation? Not til the end? And why did he come to that conclusion? Merely because he didn't feel he had enough evidence to convict anyone, or because he thought Plame's outing simply didn't violate federal law at all? He's not allowed to talk about the evidence he compiled against people he didn't indict, but he can talk about his team's legal reasoning and its understanding of the federal statutes involved. And he should".

The reason most on both sides can't hold onto consistent ethical positions is because, by and large, most people don't know why they believe what they believe. What has passed for philosiphy in this country for many, many decades has simply been an excuse for not thinking. Moral relavitism reigns supreme today. Whoopi Goldberg trumpeted on O'reilly that she doesn't have to use logic and reasoning when coming to her decisions, she simply uses her "heart." Which part of her "heart" tells her not to step in front of a speeding car? It is always easier not to actually think. But not knowing why you believe what you believe, e.g., not having a core philosiphy, ultimately leaves a person with a trash heap of inconsistencies.

This is why any person who is sure and confident of what they believe is a lightning rod. A lightning rod from the left because they are so utterly philosiphically bankrupt that they can no longer believe that anyone really can KNOW anything (yes, wake up Kant, it's time to take your meds.) A lightning rod from those on the right who are still at least looking for clarity of thought and purpose. It is truly rare to find people who know and practice a consistent, non equivocating, non relative philosiphy today.

Unfortunately, I can't say that I have always stood with you. I used to consider myself a liberal.

Everything I knew about politics, I learned from MTV. The picture I had of President Clinton when I voted for him in his second term was of a saxophone playing dude in sunglasses that was a friend of everyone. What a cool guy I thought ...

I knew nothing of what his Presidency had done ... or -*had not*- done ... I didn't care ... he looked cool on MTV, and that was all I needed.

I saw a movie called "Roger & Me" and thought what an asshole that guy was for refusing to do an interview. I downloaded Fahrenheit 9/11 as soon as it hit the net, and watched it in great anticipation ... I finished watching Fahrenheit 9/11, went to my PC, and donated $50 to Bush's Presidential campaign fund.

I had never donated money to a political campaign before, but I figured if people like Michael Moore were so well funded and organized to make a hit-piece movie, Governor Bush just might need some help, and $50 was a good place for me to start.

Since that day, I've kept politics as one of my "hobbies." I've read more books on politics than I can count, read blogs, write my own blog, talk to people about politics, listen to people about politics, study history ... In that process between voting for Clinton, I made a bit of a change. I voted for Governor Bush ... but didn't have a strong conviction -*why*- I should vote for Bush ... I was mostly in the "anyone but Ann Richards" crowd. With that said, I don't regret my vote then, and I don't regret my support for President Bush now.

Now I understand why I'm a conservative, and you're right ... it's not easy to stay conservative, but it was easy to become one. Once I opened my eyes to the entire world of politics, I knew where I really stood. My beliefs, my convictions ... they are with the conservatives ... and they always will be.

Except for the elitists liberals from acadamia most liberals have their hands out ALL the time. Give me healthcare, food, money transportation. They aren't really liberal philisophically but simply because the liberals in power will give them hand outs. Conservatives will not, so they will never vote for us. We stick to our ideology. ww

DJFelix, well said. There are many who feel like you, and we are proud to be conservatives. It's liberals who are not proud, hence their meltdowns in the last decade, and their incredible anger at themselves and their own sad lives.

"Cheney was involved in defending his office from Wilsons lies. There was no crime in this, so there is no conspiracy he can be tied to. Why would he resign?"

Now that it has been proven that Scooter Pie is a liar, the question is who much did he lie about - did his lying including a cover-up for his boss the Veep? Of course it did - and this will all come out in the civil trial - unless the defendants lie some more.... Cheney should resign immediately -- for health reasons of course.

At the trial's close, Fitzgerald expressed his concern in unusually blunt terms. After Libby's lawyers complained that he was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up, Fitzgerald told the jury on Feb. 20, "We'll talk straight."

There was, he said, "a cloud over what the vice president did" during the period before the publication of Novak's column, and it was created by testimony showing that Cheney directed Libby and others at the White House to disseminate information about Wilson and Wilson's criticisms.

"We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened," Fitzgerald added.

The notion that Libby was merely a courtroom stand-in for Cheney infuriated Libby's lawyers, who sought in their courtroom statement to defend both men. "Nobody in the office of the vice president is concerned about" Plame, Libby attorney William Jeffress Jr. said in his closing statement. "She never was part of the story they were trying to put out." Fitzgerald disagreed. Suppose, Fitzgerald said, you were investigating whether a pitcher had purposely beaned a batter, and if so, why?

"As you sit back, you want to learn why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters?" Fitzgerald asked at his October news conference. "What we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure out what happened, and somebody blocked their view."

...

He expressed skepticism that the case against Libby should have been presented to a jury.

But Fitzgerald's decision to do so may have stemmed from his pique at his inability to get to the truth about Cheney, who appeared in testimony and in White House documents disclosed to the jury as the man behind the screen, pulling the switches and levers in what one of Fitzgerald's aides described as an orchestrated "political public relations" campaign to undermine Wilson.

"...an orchestrated "political public relations" campaign to undermine Wilson." Straight from the White House - a campaign to discredit critics who proved that the administration was working on bad info -- or jst plain lying - and now that we KNOW there are liars in the administration who's to say where the lying starts and stops?

This will all come out in more detail in the months ahead. The decorum is over gone, and the gloves will come off, and VP Cheney will be subjected to the full scrutiny this situation deserves.

Interesting post, DJ. If there were any conservatives in power today, it might be worth discussing. But as many conservatives freely admit, today's Republicans are no longer conservatives; they're just Bushies.

p'p' (if that is really you) would you like to take a bet on that? Naww . I didn't think so. Just using your pretty box quotes to make you look like you know something. Just use your ditto key. Save everyone a lot of time. Resign my rear.Why the h%^l should he resign.That's like saying for your posts to make sense. Oh by the way, how many "socks" do you have?

For those in the cheap seats, the actual leakers name Armitage, from State, and not Libby who worked for the VP.

And how is it "...an orchestrated 'political public relations' campaign to undermine Wilson." when you go out and refute his assertions and tell people the truth about his actual report to the CIA? There is no there there.

Liberals could not be engaged productively in a discussion about National Security.

Uh huh. You mean like how when the Democrats propose an alternative plan to Bush's failed strategy in Iraq, the Right (and gee, right here on Wizbang, no less) immediately attacks and dismisses it as "a Plan for Retreat", "Roadmap for Terrorists", "'Slow Bleed'" legislation", "Democrat-led effort to lose the war", and a plan to see "America defeated, our troops humiliated, and Iraq exploding in violence and civil war".

Yeah, boyz, that sure is the Right modeling how to be "engaged productively".

Hypocrite. Coward. Liar. You can claim those labels as badges of honor, also. And I bet you can find another Republican to tell you how cool you look doing it.